Geoscience Policy Monthly Review
february 2017
The Monthly Review is part of a continuing effort to improve communications about the role of geoscience in policy.
Current and archived monthly reviews are available online.Subscribe to receive the Monthly Review directly.
environment
House bill introduced to eliminate Environmental Protection Agency programs
February 7, 2017
On February 7, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX-3) introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act (H.R.958) which will eliminate multiple programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
H.R.958 would defund 13 EPA programs, close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to sell/lease “under-utilized” properties. The bill also acts to eliminate all EPA grant programs, the National Clean Diesel Campaign, and environmental justice programs. The EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Climate Resilience Fund, Climate Resilience Evaluation Awareness Tool, Green Infrastructure Program, and Climate Ready Water Utilities Initiative are directed to be defunded under this bill. EPA climate research, ozone standard development, and greenhouse gas emission regulations for vehicles and power plants are also directed to be defunded under this bill.
Rep. Johnson cites a Heritage Foundation estimate that these actions would save $7.5 billion in expenditures over 10 years.
The bill was referred to the following committees: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.
Sources: House.gov, Senate.gov
House Committee holds hearing on ‘Making the EPA Great Again’
February 7, 2017
On February 7, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held the “Making EPA Great Again” hearing. In his opening statements, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX-21) expressed his disapproval of the current use of scientific research at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) stated her disappointment that the first committee hearing of this year was focused on attacking the EPA’s scientific processes.
Four witnesses testified during the hearing: Jeffrey Holmstead, an attorney and former EPA official; Kimberly White, of the American Chemistry Council (ACC); Richard Belzer, a cost-benefit analysis consultant; and Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The witnesses’ testimonies on science at the EPA lead to a discussion of two bills introduced in the 114th Congress. The first bill, the Secret Science Reform Act (H.R.1030), would mandate that all EPA science and scientific data would be reproducible and available for public review. The second bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act (H.R.1029), would broaden the “political diversity” of members on the EPA Science Advisory Board. The board, says Chairman Smith, has become a “rubber stamp” for EPA’s regulations and does not critically assess these rules.
In addition to raising these concerns, witnesses testified upon other EPA procedures. Kimberly White testified that the EPA’s chemical assessment procedures are in need of reassessment. Richard Belzer stated the concern that the EPA often overestimates the human health costs of pollution.
In contrast to these testimonies, Rush Holt testified in support of EPA science, and the EPA's current role in societal concerns. In his opening statement, he called for "reverence for evidence in our policymaking." Dr. Holt testified that the scientific process, the process the EPA utilized, has positively served the nation, and should not be reformed for political gain. He stated that proposed reforms would hinder this process and the ability of the EPA to efficiently issue effective and current regulations.
These opinions on scientific evaluation processesses remain a theme in the current committee, and were revisited at its hearing on the Social Cost of Carbon.
Sources: Congress.gov, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Senators introduce bill to recall pesticide regulation near waterways
February 7, 2017
Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced the Sensible Environment Protection Act (S.340) on February 7. The act will remove an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation requiring permits for pesticide spraying over or near waterways.
This bill will reverse a federal court decision requiring the EPA to issue permits for pesticide spraying over navigable U.S. waterways. Sen. McCaskill states that this rule is redundant because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which was first enacted in 1910, already governs the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides.
The bill acts to remove EPA mandates implemented under the Clean Water Act to issue permits for pesticide application near water. The bill also would require the EPA to create a report that evaluates whether FIFRA can be modified to better protect environmental and human health.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is currently reviewing the bill.
Source: Congress.gov
House bill to ease regulations for waste-coal plants
February 16, 2017
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA-12) introduced legislation (H.R.1119) to modify existing regulations applying to coal-refuse-to-energy power plants on February 16. The bill acts to exempt these specific power plants from emission standards required under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
These plants currently burn refuse from abandoned coal mines. Refuse consists of low-grade coal mixed with dirt and rocks and is a by-product of coal production. These refuse piles lead to acid mine drainage, dust, and other types of pollution. These areas are remediated by burning this refuse in coal-waste-to-energy plants. Rep. Rothus argues that under the current EPA emission regulations, these businesses will be forced to shut down and therefore will negatively affect the nation’s economy and environment.
H.R.1119 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sources: House.gov, Congress.gov, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Trio of bills to limit EPA air regulatory power
February 27, 2017
Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced three bills that would limit the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on February 27.
The ORDEAL Act of 2017 (S.452) amends the Clean Air Act to delay implementation of national air quality standards for ozone until 2025. The measure would also change the requirement for review of ozone standards from five-year intervals to ten-year intervals.
The Agency PAYGO for Greenhouse Gases Act (S.453) requires the EPA to include an offset from funds within the EPA budget for any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and imposes increased costs on other federal agencies.
The Commonsense Legislative Exceptional Events Reforms Act of 2017 (S.454) amends the Clean Air Act to set a 90-day deadline for approval or disapproval of an exceptional event demonstration request. If the EPA does not come to a decision within 90 days, the request will be considered approved.
All three bills are being reviewed by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Source: Congress.gov, EPA.gov
Hearing assesses social cost of carbon
February 28, 2017
How should the federal government price carbon in its assessments? This was the topic of debate at a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on February 28. Witnesses from the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the University of Chicago testified on how the social cost of carbon is currently evaluated.
Under the Obama administration, federal agencies valued the damage of climate variability on the scale of a carbon dioxide at $40/metric ton. This value is used by agencies when they are creating new policies and rules. The Congressional Research Service cites that this value has been used in more than 150 regulatory actions since 2008.
During the hearing Kevin Dayaratna, a senior statistician at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis argued that increased CO2 concentrations were not harmful. On the other side of the discussion, Michael Greenstone, director of the University of Chicago's Interdisciplinary Energy Policy Institute, stated that changing the evaluation of the social cost of carbon to only consider domestic benefits of carbon reduction, and ignore climate change outright, would encourage the rest of the world to increase carbon emissions.
Several witnesses recommended replacing the EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon with a revenue neutral carbon tax as means to address various environmental concerns of changing climate.
Sources: The House Space, Science, and Technology Committee, the Congressional Research Service